“Let me be represented as one who trusts his senses, who thinks he knows the things he sees and feels, and entertains no doubts of their existence.” -- Bishop Berkeley

News

Loading...

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Flying by Flapping One's Arms

If someone says, "Attempting to fly by vigorously flapping one's arms is doomed to fail," people are unlikely to respond, "Ah, so, if you think my method of doing this fails, then just how would you fly by flapping your arms?"

But when you point out that ideologies are inapt guides to political action, you are very likely to get asked, "So, what system do you propose, then?" Or, even more remarkably, you will be assured that your statement is itself an ideology! (The latter is like being told, "Your criticism of attempting to fly by flapping one's arms is itself a form of attempting to fly by flapping one's arms.")

11 comments:

I have been reading your criticisms of 'ideology' for a while now, and I'm still wondering what would be your 'alternative'.

If you think of ideology (maybe wrongly) as a general idea of 'a coherent set of normative ideas' anything could be called an ideology; I think. Someone who says 'we should look at any given situation and decide what is best based on prudential decision making' would than be an ideological pragmatist - or something.

I think I get your analogy. However; flying itself is simply impossible as a human being without aid. However; having normative ideas is not. So having normative ideas through an 'ideology' makes sense, but maybe there are other ways of having normative ideas, without being in an ideology. But given the general definition I gave (maybe wrong) it seems hard not to equate 'ideology' with having 'normative ideas'.

So how would you propose to think about normative ideas if not within an ideology? Could you give a more positive description of what you propose as an alternative to think about normative issues?

Why does it matter whether an actor consults some principles list ex ante? Every explanatory analysis of an action fact (assuming that we know it's an action) will be through the application of concepts, not "practical particulars." Even if we want to explain the unique mix of concepts that occurred at this particular instance, won't we do this with mixing principles?

Marris, is it helpful to regard "murder is bad" as a scientific law? Scientific laws usually relate cause to effect: if the pressure on a gas increases, ceteris paribus, the temperature will rise. Now, the "law of karma" is like that, but that is *not* what most people mean when they say "murder is bad": they are not saying it *causes* something bad, but simply *is* bad, in and of itself. It is a normative judgment, not a statement of cause and effect.